Legal Schnau­zer: Sic ‘em Dawg!

COMMENT: A depress­ingly pre­dictable devel­op­ment con­cerns the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the con­vic­tion of for­mer Alabama Gov­er­nor Don Siegel­man. Obama Attor­ney Gen­eral Eric Holder has con­tin­ued his less-than-impressive actions in the Siegel­man case, with the DOJ oppos­ing the review. 

A vet­eran of the Clin­ton admin­is­tra­tion, Holder spent the time in between serv­ing “Bubba” and Obama at a law firm that openly trum­peted its role in imped­ing inves­ti­ga­tion of Karl Rove’s behav­ior in the fir­ing of U.S. attor­neys (a case that over­laps the Siegel­man investigation.)

Legal Schnau­zer notes at the end of their analy­sis that the argu­ments used to destroy Siegel­man could be used against Obama and prob­a­bly will be, if Rom­ney wins in the fall.

Seri­ously com­pro­mised by links to the Oper­a­tion Green Quest tar­gets (includ­ing the Rove milieu), Obama is more than fool­ish, if he thinks that “play­ing nice” will present any type of speed bump for the Republicans.

As for Holder, he may just be keep­ing his hal­ter top, push-up bra, plat­form shoes, fishnet stock­ings and silk hot pants warm for his return to “pri­vate prac­tice” (on the Sun­set Strip.)

In all fair­ness to Holder and com­pany, they may just be tak­ing stock of the body count in the over­lap­ping inves­ti­ga­tions in Alabama. Has Holder been threat­ened? We should never for­get the legacy of 11/22/1963 and thereafter.

When polit­i­cal mur­der becomes a way of life, to be suc­cess­ful, one must be a “sur­vivor.” The alter­na­tive is to become a con­spir­acy theory.

“SCOTUS’S Refusal to Review Siegel­man Case Will For­ever Stand as a Reminder of Obama’s Shame”; Legal Schnau­zer; 6/5/2012.

EXCERPT: The Obama Depart­ment of Jus­tice, on mul­ti­ple occa­sions, opposed U.S. Supreme Court review of the Don Siegel­man case. The DOJ got its wish yes­ter­day when the nation’s high­est court announced that it would not review what has come to be seen as the most noto­ri­ous polit­i­cal pros­e­cu­tion in Amer­i­can history.

One can only won­der why a Demo­c­ra­tic admin­is­tra­tion would be uncon­cerned about the pros­e­cu­tion of a for­mer Demo­c­ra­tic gov­er­nor in a heav­ily Repub­li­can state. The won­der turns to amaze­ment when you con­sider that evi­dence in the Siegel­man case, even if taken as true, did not amount to a crime, as described by the U.S. Code and rel­e­vant case law.

But here is the most dis­tress­ing part of the DOJ’s actions in oppos­ing cer­tio­rari review of the Siegel­man case: A review of doc­u­ments filed by gov­ern­ment lawyers proves that even they do not believe the tes­ti­mony of the key pros­e­cu­tion wit­ness. Either that, or DOJ offi­cials do not even bother to review doc­u­ments they file in cases of national importance–and if that’s the case, some­one is com­mit­ting pro­fes­sional neg­li­gence, mis­con­duct or both. . . .

. . . . That range could some­day include for­mer Pres­i­dent Obama. After all, it’s well estab­lished that the pres­i­dent has rewarded some of his loyal con­trib­u­tors with plum ambas­sador­ships. Could a future fed­eral jury “infer” that those appoint­ments involved ille­gal quid pro quo agree­ments? Under the loose stan­dards set in the Siegel­man case, the answer undoubt­edly is yes.

Team Obama appears uncon­cerned about Don Siegelman’s plight at the moment. But here is some free Schnau­zer advice for the pres­i­dent and his staff: You had bet­ter fig­ure out a way to beat Mitt Rom­ney in Novem­ber; if you don’t, a Repub­li­can attor­ney gen­eral is going to have the facts and the law nec­es­sary to send a bunch of you to fed­eral prison.